HOME-RULE AND BRITISH INDUSTRY.
TJNDER the above title, an excellent little pamphlet has just been published by Messrs. S. Barker and Co., of Wellington Street, Leicester. The author, who calls himself " Imperium et Unitas," endeavours to ex- plain in language that can be understood and taken to heart by all, the great industrial interests that are at stake in the Home-rule controversy. He points out, that is, to working men, bow they will be damaged and injured in pocket by the granting of the Nationalist demands. Amongst hard-and-fast Gladstonians, the pamphlet -will not perhaps have much effect, for it rests upon premisses which they will not admit. They are, therefore, sure to dismiss it as containing arguments that beg the question. Technically, no doubt, this is true. The writer assumes that Irish Independence will be the ultimate result of Home-rule, and then proceeds to show how this will affect the rest of the ;United Kingdom. But the Gladstonians make it part of their creed to deny that Home-rule can ever result in Independence, and they will therefore declare that it is quite useless to attend to the arguments of " Imperium et Unitas." It is true that he brings facts to support his contention in regard to Inde- pendence; but these, no doubt, will be set down as inadequate. Under the circumstances, the pamphlet is likely to be more useful in fortifying the conclusions of those who are already inclined to be Unionists, than in converting thoroughgoing Gladstonians who steadily refuse to believe in the possibility of Irish Independence. On the present occasion, we propose to examine some of the doubts that are likely to arise in the minds of open- minded men as to those aspects of the Unionist case which are connected with the condition of British industry under Home-rule. The first of these doubts is, of course, that expressed in the question,—Is there any reason to suppose that Home-rule would end in Independence, actual or virtual ? This can only be answered by a reference to the opinions that have been expressed by the various Irish leaders. Mr. Parnell, it is now practically agreed on all hands, wished for Independence ; and Mr. Dillon, Mr. O'Brien, and even Mr. Healy, have all said things in its favour. Mr. Healy, for example, said at Boston in December, 1881—the speech was reported in the Irishman Of Decem- ber 24th, 1881 :—" To drive out British rule from Ireland, we must strike at the foundation, and that foundation is landlordism We wish to see Ireland what God intended she should be—a powerful nation. We seek no bargain with England. As the Master said unto the Tempter, when he offered him the kingdoms of the earth, Begone, Satan ! ' so we will say unto them, Begone, Saxon ! ' " We may conclude, then, that a man not con- vinced, as many Gladstonians are, that all such words are mere talk, and talk that need not be taken seriously, would on the evidence arrive at an opinion that Ireland would use Home-rule as a stepping-stone to Independence. But our fair-minded man would next think I must not le frightened by a word. Would there after all be anything so very dreadful in Ireland being independent ? Would she wish to injure England if she were independent ? and could she injure her even if she wished ? ' The answer which Unionists give to the question, "Would an independent Ireland wish to injure England ? " is perfectly clear. She would. This can be proved by references to a mass of mate- rial as vast as thatwhich proves the desire for Independence. Here we will only quote a passage from a speech made by Mr. Arthur O'Connor at a meeting in New Jersey on October 16th, 1887, and reported in the Irish World of October 22nd, 1887 :—" I know that there are within the -United States emissaries of the British Government. If such a man is here, I invite him to report that here in public, I state what I know to be a fact, that in whatever war Great Britain may be involved, that whatever Power she may have to struggle with, that Power can count upon one hundred thousand Irish arms to fight under her flag against Great Britain. Does not the Government of the United States know perfectly well that at three days' notice it could have a force, of which one hundred thousand would only be a fraction, who would be willing to serve against Great Britain for the love of the thing without any pay ?—and it is not amiss that the Government of England should know it also." This, the "Speed the Mahdi ! " of United Ireland (February 9th, 1884), and Mr. Sexton's "prevailing and unchangeable passion of hate" (October 14th, 1881), show that Ireland would, if she could, injure England. Could she injure England ? Not perhaps while we were at peace with all the world. Most unquestionably if we were at war with any naval Power. The Irish coast, indented with innumerable harbours, creeks, and anchorages, stretches along the line of coast which includes our greatest and wealthiest ports. The long procession of shipping which is every day and every hour proceeding to Glasgow, Liverpool, and the other ports of the North-West Coast, must on its way pass this stretch of coast. The flank of the procession, that is, is exposed to the inroads of vessels sailing from out the Irish ports. At present, and with a friendly Ireland, the home-coming ships sail up between two friendly coasts. Were Ireland hostile and independent, they would be forced to sail, as our merchant fleets sailed by the coasts of Europe when Napoleon's word was supreme from the mouth of the Elbe to the mouth of the Danube. This means, as " Imperium et Unitas" notes, that the cotton- supply for Manchester, the wheat-cargoes from America, and the frozen meat from Australia and the Argentine, would be in peril, and. that the products that not only feed the working man, but find him employment, would be hindered from reaching our shores. It is not enough to answer that the loss of a few cargoes might be borne with equanimity. The risk, not the actual total of de- struction, is the matter we must take into account. "The real danger would not only lie in the fact that English merchantmen would more or less frequently be picked up by an enemy's privateers, but in the fact that the mere exposure to risk to which our commerce would be subjected, would unquestionably run up the rate of English in- surance; and let that rate only touch 10 per cent, higher than the present average premium, our immense foreign and carrying trade would be shattered and annihilated, passing at once into the hands of other nations." There can be no need for elaborating these dangers. All reasonable men must admit them. We must not, how- ever, forget to deal with the argument with which a competent Gladstonian controversialist would meet our contention. He would say : If Ireland attempted to make herself independent, we should at once crush her. Any declaration of independence by her, any overt act of hostility to England, or even any infringement of a Home-rule Act, would be the signal for the despatch of a military force to close the Dublin Parliament, and re-establish the authority of the Parliament at Westminster.' The author of the pamphlet before us shows with great force how much easier a thing this is to talk about than to do. And for this reason. Any attempt "to put in force the Home-rule programme by reconquering Ireland would unquestionably bring us into collision with a strong feeling in the United States." Is it to be supposed, asks the writer of the pamphlet, that the Americans would remain passive in the struggle ? He answers his question thus : "They would most assuredly do nothing of the kind, for on the first attempt at reconquest on our part, there would pass through every State of the Union a wave of sentiment stimulated by motives and passions now more or less dormant, but which the action taken in defence of our most vital interests would rouse into active life." Thougla by no means inclined to the notion that America hates England, we cannot help fearing that this might be the result. American statesmen would fancy that they were interfering for our good, just as Mr. Gladstone, when he made his famous Newcastle speech, no doubt thought he was interfering for the good of America. But if he and his colleagues found it difficult not to take sides with the South, how much more difficult would it be for the Americans, encumbered with some five or six million Irishmen, not to take sides with Ireland ! If we had had living among us a population of some four million Southerners, we should have found it almost impossible to keep out of the war. Home-rule, then, as a crowning evil, would most likely end by involving us in a war with our own kindred in America,—would that is, a flame that would end the supremacy of the Anglo-Saxon race. If the English kin can be kept from war among themselves, the future is theirs. If, how- ever, they engage in a civil war, that war is likely to be a struggle in which either Power will bleed to death, and leave the hegemony of the world to the Teuton or the Slay. Home-rule, however looked at, means ruin to Great Britain, ruin to Ireland, and ruin to the English kin. This fact once realised, explains the passion with which it is resisted. Unionism is a faith, and a faith which rests on the conviction that it is essential for the welfare of the race.
Previous page
